- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:43:18 -0700
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9akmdRJiM=SujwYsMZ-GbQc7x03sFxxycsfXCKikarwA@mail.gmail.com>
On Aug 29, 2014 12:30 PM, "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > > Hello TAG! > > We're discussing an issue in the Web Audio API ( https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/317) of the need for suspending and resuming AudioContexts for power consumption reasons. Alongside this, we've found the need to be able to release AudioContexts completely - in short, AudioContexts may be consuming system resources, and we need a way for developers to definitively state "I'm done with this now", aside from just releasing references and hoping the GC takes care of it. > > The current proposal is to add a method to the AudioContext interface: > > Promise release (); This is a general pattern that we have seen in many APIs. Canvas is another such example. Blobs and WebSockets are other. I believe there is a bit of prior art in calling the function .close(). This is what Blob and WebSocket calls it (though WebSocket's close() does other things too). What is the purpose of returning a Promise? I don't particularly mind, but given that this is a function to save resources, why incur the cost of an extra object creation? / Jonas > > Releases the audio context, including any system resources used by it. This will not automatically release all AudioContext-created objects, unless other references have been released as well; however, it will forcibly release any system resources that might prevent additional AudioContexts from being created and used. The promise resolves when any AudioContext-creation-blocking resources have been released. > > Do you have any concerns over this pattern? > > Thanks, > -Chris >
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2014 20:43:45 UTC